Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee dismissed counts 15 and 27 against former President Donald Trump in the 2020 election interference case.
“However, because Counts 14, 15, and 27 lie beyond this State’s jurisdiction and must be quashed, the Defendants’ motions to dismiss the indictment under the Supremacy Clause are granted in part,” wrote Judge McAfee. “Any other arguments based on the Supremacy Clause not specifically addressed in this Order are denied.”
Trump was not indicted on Count 14, only the two defendants listed at the top of the filing.
The filing shows John Eastman and Shawn Still as the defendants.
Count 27 alleges the defendants violated O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20.1, which is filing false documents.
The document in question is “Verified Complaint for Emergency Injunctive and Declaratory Relief” in civil action Trump v. Kemp.
However, the document does not count and “could be directly punished under a federal perjury statute.” Judge McAfee wrote:
Verified complaints to a federal district court come within the ambit of federal perjury statutes. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621–23. Because the statutory reach of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20.1 provides a criminal sanction for verified false statements made under oath in federal court, the undersigned concludes that the Defendants’ quasi-facial challenge succeeds. This charge must be quashed.
Counts 14 and 15 alleges that some “false documents were mailed to the district court in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20.1.”
Judge McAfee wrote that without any certification, the documents “fall outside the federal statutes.”
However, the documents fall “within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which generally criminalizes false statements to any branch of government outside of parties to judicial proceedings.”
Punishing the defendants on these counts won’t work because a federal sanction already exists:
In reaching its holding, the Court stressed that “[i]t is essential, to the impartial and efficient administration of justice in the tribunals of the nation, that witnesses should be able to testify freely before them, unrestrained by legislation of the state, or by fear of punishment in the state courts.” 134 U.S. at 375. Applying this reasoning to the facts alleged in the indictment, filing a document in a federal court is sufficiently analogous to providing testimony. Punishment for filing certain documents would enable a state to constrict the scope of materials assessed by a federal court and impair the administration of justice in that tribunal. At its core, Loney concerns the ability of a federal tribunal to police its own proceedings. Counts 14 and 15, as alleged here, interfere with the District Court’s ability to do just that by imposing a state sanction when a federal sanction is already in place. For these reasons, the undersigned believes that Counts 14 and 15 must also be quashed as beyond the jurisdiction of this State.
McAfee upheld the racketeering charge along with all the other counts.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY